The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking appointment as an Aanganwadi Karyakarta. The Court held that the preliminary list was subject to document verification and training, creating no legal right to appointment, and the impugned order was based on disputed facts not suitable for judicial intervention.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9726/ 2014
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9726/ 2014
Sonal Agrawal-Petitioner
Versus State & Ors.-Respondents Date of Order-: : -16.12.2014 Hon ' ble Ms. Ju st ice Bela M. Tr ivedi
Mr. S.C. Gupta, for petitioner. Mr. B.K. Sharma, G.C. for respondent/ s.
ORDER
By t h e Cou r t : -
1 . The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 08.09.2014 (Annexure-2), passed by the respondent No.2 and further seeking direction against the respondents to send the petitioner for training and issue appointment letter in her favour for the post of 'Aanganwadi Karyakarta' with all consequential benefits.
2 . It is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Shiv Charan Gupta for the petitioner that the petitioner was duly selected for the post of Aanganwadi Worker as per the order dated 30.06.2014 at Annexure/ 1 and the same is sought to be cancelled as per the impugned order dated 08.09.2014 at Annexure/ 2 by the respondent No.2 arbitrarily, illegally and on extraneous considerations. It is also submitted that since the petitioner was not sent for training alongwith the other selected candidates, she had made complaints to the respondent Nos.2
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9726/ 2014
2
and the Distt. Collector, and therefore the impugned order was passed by the respondent Nos.2 & 3 cancelling the selection on the ground that the other candidates having higher qualifications than the petitioner were not considered while preparing list at Annexure/ 1, so far as the ward No.22 was concerned. According to Mr. Gupta, the complaints received by the respondent No.2 from the other candidates had no substance as the said candidates did not belong to Ward No.22, as transpiring from the documents produced by the petitioner, whereas the petitioner belonged to ward No.22 and was duly qualified for the post of 'Aanganwadi Karyakarta'. Mr. Gupta has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Sh an k ar san Dash V. Un ion of I n dia, AI R 1 9 9 1 Su pr em e Cou r t 1 6 1 2 , to submit that though the State is under no obligation to fill up all the vacancies, the State has no license of acting in arbitrary manner and that the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates as reflected at the recruitment test. Learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing by the respondent No.2 while passing the impugned order, and therefore the same deserves to be setaside.
3 . However, the learned Govt. Counsel Mr. B.K. Sharma for the respondents relying upon the reply filed by the respondents has raised preliminary objection as regards the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the petition involved disputed
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9726/ 2014
3
questions of facts. He further submitted that the petitioner was included in the list dated 30.06.2014 at Annexure/ 1 as the parshad of ward No.22 had given out to the committee that the other candidates were not the residents of ward No.22 but subsequently it was found to be not correct position. According to him, the selection of the petitioner was cancelled as the respondent No.2 had received many complaints to the effect that other more qualified candidates were not considered by the selection committee, though available from ward No.22, and the respondent No.3 had found after calling for the fact finding report that the selection of the petitioner was wrongly made by the selection committee. He also submitted that the Aanganbari Workers are being appointed on the honorarium basis, and the order at Annexure/ 1 was subject to the candidates obtaining the requisite grade after the completion of the training as stated in the orders at Annexure/ 1 & Annexure/ 3.
4 . In the instant case, it appears that the petitioner having applied for the post of Aanganbari Worker from ward No.22, she was included in the list of candidates mentioned in the order at Annexure/ 1, which is titled as 'चयन सूचना'. In the said order, the name of the petitioner was shown at serial No.20. It has been mentioned in the said order that the candidates shall have to produce the relevant documents for verification as mentioned therein at the concerned office and that the order of selection shall be issued only on Aanganwadi Karyakarta having completed
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9726/ 2014
4
the requisite training. From the said order which is in the form of instructions (Annexure/ 1), it clearly transpires that there was no final selection made by the respondent No.2 of any of the candidates mentioned therein, and that the final selection was to be made only after the verification of the requisite documents and after the training was completed by the said candidates. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that in the order dated 24.07.2014 (Annexure/ 3), also it was specifically mentioned that the order for selection shall be issued only on the candidates obtaining 'A' or 'B' Grade in the training. Thus, there remains no shadow of doubt that the order dated 30.06.2014 at Annexure/ 1 was not the select list conferring any right on the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the final selection having not been made of any of the candidates, the contention made by the learned counsel that the petitioner was selected for the post in question, can not be accepted. It is needless to say that the candidate has only right to be considered for selection and has no right to be selected or appointed. There cannot be any disagreement with the decision of Apex Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, however same is not applicable to the facts of the present case. When the petitioner was not sent for training nor was selected, the question of giving her appointment to the post of 'Aanganwadi Karyakarta' also would not arise, as prayed for in the petition.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9726/ 2014
5
5 . It has been sought to be submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order (Annexure/ 2) has been passed by the respondent No.2 arbitrarily and on extraneous consideration, however as transpiring from the said order as well as from the order at Annexure/ 7, after the inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the list (Annexure/ 1), certain complaints were received by the respondent No.2 to the effect that the other candidates of Ward No.22 were not considered by the selection committee, and that other more qualified candidates than the petitioner were also available, who have not been considered. The respondent No.3 having called for the fact finding report from the respondent No.2, the respondent No.3 had found substance in the said complaints, and therefore the impugned order was passed. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents, whether the other candidates were the residents of Ward No.22 or not, and whether the other candidates were more qualified than the petitioner or not are disputed questions of facts, which should not be gone into by the Court exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Since the petitioner was considered for selection
as per order at Annexure/ 1, no legal right as such was created in her favour by that order itself. Merely because she was included in the list at Annexure/ 1, she can not compel the respondents to send her for the training and give her appointment on the post in question. Even otherwise, the respondent Nos.2 & 3 having
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9726/ 2014
6
passed the impugned order after finding substance in the complaints received by them, it could not be said that the impugned order has been passed arbitrarily and on extraneous consideration. In that view of the matter, the Court does not find any merit in the present petition.
6 . For the reasons stated hereinabove, the petition deserves to be dismissed, and is accordingly dismissed. By this order, the stay application and other pending applications if any, also stand dismissed.
( Bela M. Tr ivedi) J. R.Vaishnav 15.
“All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.” Ramesh Vaishnav-Personal Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order cancelling the petitioner's inclusion in the preliminary selection list was arbitrary and passed without notice.
Whether the petitioner had an acquired right to appointment or training based on the provisional selection order.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shankar San Dash v. Union of IndiaReferred¶13
Sh an k ar san Dash V. Un ion of I n dia, AI R 1 9 9 1 Su pr eme Cou r t 1 6 1 2
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sonal Agrawal
State
Bela M. Trivedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
